BEFORE THE DISTRICT CONSUMER DISPTUES REDRESSAL FORUM, KAITHAL.
Complaint no.323/16.
Date of instt.: 20.10.2016.
Date of Decision: 01.06.2017.
Sanjeev Kumar s/o Sh. Dyal Chand, r/o H.No.260, Sector-19-I, HUDA, Kaithal.
……….Complainant.
Versus
- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula through its Administrator, C-3, HUDA Complex, Sector-6, Panchkula.
- Haryana Urban Development Authority, Kaithal through its Estate Officer.
..……..Opposite Parties.
COMPLAINT UNDER SEC. 12 OF CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT, 1986.
Before: Sh. Jagmal Singh, President.
Sh. Rajbir Singh, Member.
Smt. Harisha Mehta, Member.
Present : Sh. Ranbir Rana, Advocate for the complainant.
Sh. Subhash Chugh, Advocate for the opposite parties.
ORDER
(JAGMAL SINGH, PRESIDENT).
The complainant has filed the present complaint under Section 12 of Consumer Protection Act, 1986, with the averments that he is re-allottee of residential plot No.312GP of area measuring 14 marla situated in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Kaithal vide memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/0000000204 dt. 01.08.2012. It is alleged that as per the term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter i.e. 24.05.2011 after completion of development work in the area but the Ops failed to comply with the condition No.7 of the allotment letter. It is further alleged that the possession was offered by the Ops vide letter dt. 28.12.2014 to the complainant without completing development works at site i.e. basic amenities, road, street light, electricity lines, sewerage, water supply, community hall, parks, schools, health-centre and police station in the area of plot of complainant. This way, the Ops are deficient in service. Hence, this complaint is filed.
2. Upon notice, the opposite parties appeared before this forum and filed written statement raising preliminary objections with regard to maintainability; cause of action; locus-standi; jurisdiction; that the complainant is re-allottee of plot in question and hence, he does not fall within the definition of consumer as provided in Consumer Protection Act, 1986; that all the basic amenities like roads, sewerage/drainage, water supply and electricity supply have already been completed. In this regard, in reference to office endorsement No.870 dt. 14.01.2014, 12103 dt. 02.06.2014 issued by the Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal, the report regarding the completion of development works vide endorsement No.1738-39 dt. 30.06.2014 has been issued by Sub Divisional Engineer, HUDA, Sub Division Kaithal to Executive Engineer, HUDA, Karnal regarding all 946 plots including the plot re-allotted to the complainant. There is no deficiency in service on the part of answering Ops. On merits, the contents of complaint are denied and so, prayed for dismissal of complaint.
3. In support of his case, the complainant tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.CW1/A and documents Mark-C1 to Mark-C7 and closed evidence on 09.03.2017. On the other hand, the Ops tendered in evidence affidavit Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-RA & Mark-RB and closed evidence on 02.05.2017.
4. We have heard ld. counsel for both the parties and perused the case file carefully and minutely and have also gone through the evidence led by the parties.
5. Ld. Counsel for the complainant reiterated all the points mentioned in the complaint. He argued that the complainant is re-allottee of plot No.312GP of area measuring 14 marla situated in Sector-21, Urban Estate, Kaithal vide memo No.Z0004/EO007/UE015/REALL/0000000204 dt. 01.08.2012. He further argued that originally, the plot in question was allotted to Sh. Major Singh son of Sh. Gurdev Singh vide letter dt. 24.05.2011, Mark-C4 and thereafter, the same was re-allotted to the complainant vide above-said letter dt. 01.08.2012, Mark-C2. He further argued that as per the term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter, the possession of the plot was to be offered within a period of three years from the date of allotment letter i.e. 24.05.2011 after completion of development work in the area but the Ops failed to comply with the condition No.7 of the allotment letter. He further argued that the possession was offered by the Ops vide letter dt. 28.12.2014 to the complainant without completing development works at site i.e. basic amenities, road, street light, electricity lines, sewerage, water supply, community hall, parks, schools, health-centre and police station in the area of plot of complainant. Ld. Counsel for the complainant submitted authority on the point that re-allottee is a consumer and the same is titled as Haryana Urban Devt. Auth. Vs. Shushila Devi Sharma, 2011(4) CPJ page 3 (SC). On the other hand, ld. Counsel for the Ops argued that the complainant is re-allottee of plot in question, so, he is not consumer of Ops. He further argued that the Ops have offered the possession of the plot to the complainant after the completion of basic amenities i.e. habilitation/dwelling like electricity, sewerage, drinking water, rainy water drainage, roads lane and street light etc. The Ops have also relied upon the authority cited in HUDA Vs. Raje Ram, 2009(1) CPC page 727 (SC).
6. From the pleadings and evidence of the case, we found that the plot in question was originally allotted to Sh. Major Singh on 24.05.2011 and the plot was re-allotted to the complainant vide letter dt. 01.08.2012, Mark-C2 after acceptance of terms and conditions of allotment letter dt. 24.05.2011. It is admitted case of the parties that the possession of the plot has been offered by the Ops on 28.12.2014. But the allegation of complainant is that the Ops have offered the possession without completing the basic amenities. To prove the fact that the basic amenities have been provided, the Ops have placed on file affidavit, Ex.RW1/A and documents Mark-RA & Mark-RB. It is clear from the documents Mark-RA & Mark-RB that the water supply, sewerage, roads and electrification works have been completed in the vicinity of plot of the complainant. The complainant has not placed on the file any document or report regarding basic amenities except his affidavit by which it could be proved that the basic amenities have not been provided by the Ops. So, the contention of Ops that the basic amenities of water supply, sewerage, drainage, roads, electricity and street light have been provided have force. Thus, in view of these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the necessary basic amenities have been provided by the Ops in the vicinity of plot of the complainant. The contention of Ops that re-allottee is not consumer of Ops has no force because the authority titled as HUDA Vs. Sushila Devi (supra) submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is later than the authority titled as HUDA Vs. Raje Ram (supra) submitted by the Ops. The authority submitted by ld. Counsel for the complainant is fully applicable to the facts of present case. So, we are of the considered view that the complainant is consumer of Ops.
7. Now coming on the contention of complainant that the possession was not offered within the period of three years from the date of allotment i.e. 24.05.2011 as per term and condition No.7 of the allotment letter and we found force in this contention of complainant. It is admitted by the Ops that the possession was offered on 28.12.2014. So, the possession was offered after the period of three years. The condition No.7 runs as under:-
“7. The possession of the plot will be offered within a period of 3 years from the date of allotment after completion of development work in the area. In case possession of the plot is not offered within the prescribed period of 3 years from the date of allotment, HUDA will pay interest @ 9% (or as may be fixed by Authority from time to time) on the amount deposited by you after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession and you will not be required to pay the further instalments. The payment of the balance instalments will only start after the possession of the plot is offered to you”.
Therefore, the possession of the plot in question was not offered within the period of 3 years as mentioned in the condition No.7 of allotment letter. In view of this condition, we are of the considered view that the Ops are liable to pay interest @ 9% after the expiry of 3 years till the date of offer of possession on the amount deposited by the complainant upto 24.05.2014. As the Ops have not complied with the condition No.7 of allotment letter, as mentioned above, hence, they are deficient while rendering services to the complainant.
8. Thus, as a sequel of above discussion, we allow the complaint partly and direct the Ops to pay interest @ 9% from 24.05.2014 to 28.12.2014 to the complainant on the amount deposited regarding the plot in question upto 24.05.2014 and further not to claim any interest on the remaining instalments for the period from 24.05.2014 to 28.12.2014. However, the Ops are at liberty to claim charges including interest and extension fees as per their rules and regulations except the period w.e.f. 24.05.2014 to 28.12.2014. The Ops are also burdened to pay Rs.3,000/- (Three thousand) as lump sum compensation on account of harassment, mental agony and costs of litigation charges. Both the Ops are jointly and severally liable. Let the order be complied with within 30 days from the date of communication of this order. A copy of this order be sent to both the parties free of costs. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.
Announced.
Dt.01.06.2017.
(Jagmal Singh),
President.
(Harisha Mehta), (Rajbir Singh),
Member. Member.
